This document is available in two
formats: this web page (for browsing content) and PDF (comparable to original document formatting). To view the PDF you will need Acrobat Reader, which may be downloaded from the
Adobe site. For an official signed copy, please contact the
Antitrust Documents Group.

FILEDAPR 20 2006/s/ CLERK

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH DAKOTA
SOUTHERN DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff,

vs.

NEXTIRAONE, LLC,

Defendant.

|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|

CR06-40041

INFORMATION

Fraud by wire

18 U.S.C. §1343

The United States of America, acting through its attorneys, charges:

(INTRODUCTION)

1. In the Telecommunications Act of 1996, Congress mandated a "Universal
Service Fund" to help provide modern telecommunication and information
services to four groups: schools and libraries, rural health care providers,
low-income consumers, and high-cost communities. The Federal Communications
Commission ("FCC") adopted a Universal Service Order on or about May
7, 1997, which implemented the Telecommunications Act of 1996. The schools
and libraries portion of the order, known as the "Education rate" or
the "E-rate" Program, was designed to encourage schools and libraries
to upgrade their telecommunications and information infrastructure and
to assist in providing students with access to the Internet. The FCC
subsequently contracted with the Universal Services Administrative Company
("USAC"), a non-profit corporation, to administer the Universal Services
Fund, including the Schools and Libraries Division's ("SLD") portion.

2. The E-rate Program provides up to $2.25 billion annually in discounts
to eligible schools and libraries for data and telecommunications goods
and services. A core requirement of the E-rate Program is that all qualifying
school districts and libraries must pay a percentage of the cost of
the equipment and services for which funding is sought ("non-discounted
portion"). That percentage is based on the number of students in the
district qualifying for the United States Department of Agriculture's
free/reduced school lunch program, with the neediest school districts
eligible for the highest discount percentage. The E-rate Program pays
a percentage -- between 20% and 90% -- of the costs of the eligible
services and equipment directly to the contracted service provider while
the school district or library is required to pay the remainder, or
non-discounted portion, plus the total cost of any non-eligible goods
and services. Among the reasons why applicant schools are required to
pay a portion of the costs are: (a) to ensure that schools have a financial
incentive to negotiate with vendors for the most competitive prices,
and (b) to ensure that schools purchase only those services and equipment
that they truly need and can afford, thus ensuring that the government's
spending under the program is not wasteful.

3. During the relevant period, applications for E-rate funding far
exceeded the amount of money available. In order to distribute funds
to the largest number of applicants, the FCC instituted certain rules
and procedures. Two such rules were that only USAC-approved equipment
and services would be eligible for funding, and that school districts
had to follow competitive bidding procedures in accordance with local
and state laws. In establishing the competitive bidding requirement,
the FCC commented that without competitive bidding, the prices that
vendors charged schools and libraries might be needlessly high, with
the result that fewer eligible schools and libraries would be able to
benefit from the E-rate Program.

(BACKGROUND)

4. For the purposes of this Information, the "relevant period" encompasses
from at least December, 2000, through at least December, 2002. During
this period, NextiraOne, LLC ("NextiraOne") was a wholly-owned subsidiary
of Platinum Equity, LLC ("Platinum"). NextiraOne was organized as a
limited liability company in the state of Delaware with its principal
place of business in Houston, Texas. NextiraOne was formerly known as
Williams Communications Solutions ("WCS"). In or around January, 2001,
WCS's parent company agreed to sell WCS to Platinum. WCS was sold in
April of 2001, and Platinum renamed the business unit "Nextira," and
then later, "NextiraOne".

5. Whenever this Information refers to any act, deed, or transaction
of either WCS or NextiraOne, it means that they engaged in the act,
deed, or transaction by or through their officers, directors, employees,
agents, or other representatives while they were actively engaged in
the management, direction, control, or transaction of their business
or affairs.

6. During the relevant period, WCS, and subsequently NextiraOne, were
engaged in the design, sale, and maintenance of advanced voice and data
networks.

7. During the relevant period, NextiraOne sought to expand its E-rate
business and employed a group of individuals to advise and educate its
sales force about how to obtain E-rate customers. These individuals
sought out school districts that qualified for discounts ranging from
80% to 90%, which are the discount rates associated with the poorest
schools. Under the rules of the E-rate program, these schools were obligated
to pay their chosen service providers between 10% and 20% of the cost
of eligible goods and services that USAC approved during any funding
year; NextiraOne, as a vendor, had a reciprocal obligation to submit
invoices to the schools for the non-discounted portion.

8. During the relevant period, the Oglala Nation Educational Coalition
("ONEC") member schools, located on the Pine Ridge Reservation in the District of
South Dakota, applied for and received funding from the E-rate Program at the
90% discount rate using first WCS, and then NextiraOne, as their primary vendor
for upgrading their telecommunications and data infrastructure. Among the
ONEC schools were: Pine Ridge High, Wounded Knee, Loneman, Red Cloud, Our
Lady of Lourdes, Crazy Horse, Porcupine, American Horse, Pine Ridge Christian,
Batesland, Rockyford, Red Shirt, Wolf Creek, and the Oglala Lakota College (the
"ONEC schools").

(PURPOSE OF THE SCHEME AND ARTIFICE)

9. During the relevant period, it was a purpose of the scheme to defraud that
WCS, and then NextiraOne, would unlawfully enrich itself through:

Control of the application, design, implementation, and invoicing
processes for the ONEC project, which WCS, and then NextiraOne, intended
to be funded entirely by the E-rate Program;

The submission of materially false and misleading information to
the SLD in order to obtain E-rate Program funding for the ONEC project;

The omission and misrepresentation of information that would have
resulted in the denial or significant reduction of E-rate Program funding
for the ONEC project; and

The concealment of the above from the FCC and the SLD.

(THE SCHEME AND ARTIFICE TO DEFRAUD)

10. It was a part of the scheme and artifice to defraud that WCS,
and subsequently NextiraOne, went to great lengths to deceive the ONEC
schools and to induce them to participate in the fraudulent scheme by
making a materially false representation that the entire voice, video,
and data project would cost the ONEC schools nothing.

11. It was a part of the scheme and artifice to defraud that the defendant
also engaged in an ongoing deception to convince the SLD that the ONEC
schools had paid their non-discounted portion when, in reality, inflated
equipment costs billed to the SLD were used to pay for ONEC's 10% obligation
and non-eligible items.

12. In particular, the defendant:

Induced the ONEC schools to participate in the E-rate Program and to select
WCS and, later, NextiraOne as the primary vendor in each year's E-rate
application during the relevant period with the promise of an advanced
voice, video, and data network at no cost;

Represented to the SLD that the ONEC schools had been billed for
the non-discounted portion of all eligible services and equipment. The
defendant, in fact, charged ONEC nothing for the eligible goods and
services, and charged nothing for related non-eligible goods and services,
and assured the ONEC schools that they would not have to pay for these
goods and services because a foundation or philanthropic organization
would pay for ONEC's non-discounted share. In this manner WCS and, later,
NextiraOne were able to secure ONEC's business and "sell" goods and
services at non-competitive prices, and to impose the entire inflated
cost on the E-rate Program;

Deceived the SLD by submitting materially false and fraudulent invoice
documents which included out-of-date equipment lists, misleading service
certifications, and related supporting documentation that gave the false
appearance that the work being performed and the equipment being installed
was what was originally requested and was being billed for, and that
the ONEC schools had paid their non-discounted share;

Claimed to donate goods and services deemed ineligible for E-Rate
funds to ONEC when, in fact, the defendant's prices were calculated
so as to pay for the cost of all such non-eligible goods and services;
and

Persuaded ONEC's leaders and its treasurer to disregard statements
mailed by the defendant's outside auditor by misrepresenting that the
letters were generated for internal purposes, and that the auditor's
statements did not reflect actual financial obligations that ONEC had
incurred under the E-rate Program.

13. It was further part of the scheme to defraud that on or about December
15, 2000, WCS representatives gave a presentation to ONEC schools and
Oglala Lakota Sioux tribal leaders in Rapid City, South Dakota, during
which an employee of WCS promised that the proposed voice and data network
project would cost the ONEC schools nothing and that WCS would find
alternative funding sources to pay for ONEC's non-discounted portion.

14. It was further part of the scheme to defraud that on or about January
18 and 19, 2001, a WCS employee instructed a tribal member on the Pine
Ridge Reservation by telephone what to fill in, line by line, on the
Form 471s submitted to the SLD. By filing a FCC Form 471, which is also
known as the "Services Ordered and Certification" form, applicant schools
request funding from the E-rate Program for specific goods and services.

15. It was further part of the scheme to defraud that the same WCS
employee faxed over interstate wires the necessary documents to complete
the final Form 471 for Funding Year Four to tribal members on or about
January 19, 2001, which was after the deadline for filing.

16. It was further part of the scheme to defraud that on or about December
17, 2001, the NextiraOne employee described in Paragraph 14 submitted
a Service Provider Annual Certification Form (FCC Form 473) that falsely
represented that, with respect to any Service Provider Invoice submitted
to the SLD by NextiraOne, NextiraOne had also billed the customer for
the non-discounted portion, while knowing that this had not happened
with the ONEC project.

17. It was further part of the scheme to defraud that beginning in
or about December 2001, in connection with changes in project management
personnel, the defendant re-engineered the original ONEC project with
the result that the total cost of the project materially decreased.
The defendant did not tell the ONEC schools that the project's cost,
after the redesign, was substantially lower. In addition, the defendant
sent to the SLD - and received payment on - bills that intentionally
concealed the redesigned project and resulting lower costs. By submitting
these false and misleading invoices, NextiraOne circumvented SLD oversight
procedures that would have otherwise resulted in a significant reduction
of E-rate funding for this project.

18. It was further part of the scheme to defraud that from approximately
December, 2001, through at least February, 2002, NextiraOne employees
used substantial sums of E-rate money generated by the submission of
these false and misleading invoices to pay for ONEC and other related
consulting contracts. These contracts were ineligible for E-rate funding
and the SLD was unaware that its money was being diverted to consulting
contracts, as these contracts were not reflected in the invoice materials
that NextiraOne submitted.

19. It was further part of the scheme to defraud that in or around
June, 2002, the defendant delivered only seven PictureTel videoconferencing
units to the ONEC schools as part of the ONEC project when the SLD had
approved and paid for 14 PictureTel units.

20. It was further part of the scheme to defraud that by failing to
deliver and install certain equipment at the ONEC schools, by utilizing
different equipment than what had been submitted to the SLD for funding
approval, and by charging inflated prices for the ONEC project, the
defendant deceived the SLD into overpaying for the ONEC Funding Year
Four application by over $1,000,000. At no time during the relevant
period did the defendant advise ONEC, or the tribal member, to file
an FCC Form 500 notifying the SLD of these equipment changes and substantially
lower costs, as required under the Program's rules.

21. It was further part of the scheme to defraud that the SLD, in reliance
upon the defendant's materially false representations, paid NextiraOne
the following amounts in response to Form 474 Service Provider Invoices
submitted by NextiraOne for the ONEC FY 4 project: $429,020.40 (December
13, 2001, invoice); $160,098.77 (January 7, 2002, invoice); $616,141.80
(May 24, 2002, invoice); $1,500,000.00 (August 8, 2002, invoice); $658,488.60
(August 23, 2002, invoice); and $441,442.93 (September 3, 2002, invoice),
for a total amount of $3,805,192.50.

22. During the relevant period, for the purpose of executing its scheme,
the defendant transmitted, and caused to be transmitted and received,
electronic wire communications in interstate commerce in South Dakota,
and elsewhere.

(THE USE OF INTERSTATE WIRES)

23. On or about January 21, 2002, the defendant,

NEXTIRAONE, LLC,

having devised and intending to devise a scheme and artifice to defraud
the SLD and the ONEC schools, and for obtaining money and property by
means of false and fraudulent pretenses, representations, and promises
and the concealment of material facts, and, for the purpose of executing
that scheme to defraud, transmitted and caused to be transmitted a fax
communication in interstate commerce from Houston, Texas, to an SLD
invoice analyst in New Jersey which contained a materially false invoice
representing that ONEC had been billed for its non-discounted portion
of the ONEC project and had paid, or would pay, the listed amount.

(JURISDICTION AND VENUE)

24. The fraudulent scheme charged in this Information was begun, and
subsequently carried out, within the District of South Dakota and elsewhere.